User talk:Brianboulton/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Thanks for PR

Thank you very much for your detailed work at Wikipedia:Peer review/Richard Henry Savage/archive1. Peer reviews are not glamorous or sexy but they are essential to the raising up of Wikipedia's reputation. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Harry Lee (cricketer) sources

Hi. I've seen your comments on both peer reviews and featured article reviews, and wondered if I could get your opinion on this article. Parts of the article are referenced solely by Lee's autobiography: I've tried to make sure that for the most part this is only used for his opinions on certain things, or for places where no other information is likely to be found, such as his childhood. I've been considering nominating the article for featured status, but I'm not sure whether these references would be appropriate or not. Would you possibly be able to take a look and give me your opinion? Kind regards, Harrias ^talk 16:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

From a quick look, I didn't get the impression that Lee's autobiography has been overused as a source, although I haven't checked the individual citations. There are, however, sources available which have not been used, for example any of several Middlesex County histories (Wellings 1972, Anton Rippon 1982, Lemmon 1988), or biography/autobiographies of Lee's distinguished county contemporaries, e.g. Ian Peebles's biography of Patsy Hendren (about 1970 I think). Any of these will probably contain good information about Lee. If you care to put this article up for peer review, I will make a point of giving it a detailed reading, though it may have to wait a week or so. Brianboulton (talk) 17:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I've created the peer review (here). I've had a look, and Lemmon and Rippon's books are available cheaply on Amazon, but I'm wary about spending the money when there may be minimal information on Lee, so I'm going to see whether I can source them anywhere else, or if anyone else here has a copy lying around! No rush on the PR; I'm pretty hectic with work and family stuff over the next few weeks, so I might also be slow to respond to any comments you do make, but trust me, they'll be greatly appreciated all the same! Harrias ^talk 17:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that your local library could get you Lemmon's book within a few days. I used to have a copy, but I got rid of it, along with a lot of other cricket stuff, when I had to find more shelf space for my music and opera books...each to his choice, I suppose. Brianboulton (talk) 18:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and notice

Hey Brian, thanks so much for reviewing Pilgrim at Tinker Creek earlier in the week. Your comments are always much appreciated. I've nominated the article for FAC here in case you're interested in giving it another look.

Speaking of reviews, since I know you're rather active at PR, I wonder if you've seen Wikipedia:Peer review/Charles Lindbergh/archive2? I closed it yesterday for being inactive (among other reasons), but my closure was reverted by the nominator who seems to be confusing PR with dispute resolution. I still think it should be closed, and the dispute taken to the proper forum, but perhaps I'm not making myself clear. If you have time, I'd be grateful if you could have a look. I'm not involved in any way, thank goodness; I'm just concerned that the PR process is being used incorrectly. Thanks! María (yllosubmarine) 13:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I closed it again - thanks for the heads up Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Ruhrfisch. I knew I was missing an official notice like the one you cited. :) María (yllosubmarine) 13:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks very much for the comments at FAC, Brian! I've just one question if you don't mind popping back in. María (yllosubmarine) 15:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Carmen

Just wondering if you feel that you will be done editing Carmen by March 3 (00:00 UTC), as it is currently scheduled to appear on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March 3. If not, let me know and I'll take it off for this year. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 05:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the editing will continue for at least another week, followed by reviews and assessments, so best left I think. Brianboulton (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Radzymin (1920)

Thanks. I really don't think I could improve prose any further, as the article's been already copy-edited by at least five different people. It's also a MilHist A-class and a GA, I'm not sure what else could be done now or in two weeks. And from my experience there is only two reasons why FACs do not attract attention. One is copyright paranoiacs and the other is red tape fans. If any of those drop by as the first commenters, most of the lurkers stay away and do not return. I believe that's what happened in this case, especially that the reviews so far were mostly positive. Anyway, I would be grateful if you read the rest of the article and see if you like it. //Halibutt 00:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Chrisye

Hi Brian, this is just to let you know that Chrisye (which you helped peer review) has been nominated at FAC. If you would like to participate in the discussion it would be appreciated. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've responded. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've answered your questions... Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Presidents are like pistachio nuts, you are never satisfied with just one

William McKinley safely landed at PR by Coemgenus and myself. Your input gratefully appreciated, warning, it's long. Hoping you are getting on well with the cigarette lady.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The ciggie lady will be reviewable in about a week - slow going at present. I will be pleased to review McKinley, but it may be in a few days, as I have a few prior commitments. On the matter of the article's length, I've done a bit of preliminary research. It seems that 12 to 13 thousand words is pretty normal for "major" presidents (whether or not FA) – Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Nixon, Reagan – but the minor figures (Hayes, the Harrisons, Arthur etc) warrant much less prose. William Harrison has a mere 5620, but he was only president for about 12 minutes. McKinley (13500) will be the longest of all thus far; whether he fairly ranks with the majors I am not really competent to judge. I may comment further on this aspect when I've read the article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. When you recently edited Carmen, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lyons, Dieppe and Academy of Music (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

• News and notes: Chapter-selected Board seats, an invite to the Teahouse, patrol becomes triage, and this week in history

• In the news: Heights reached in search rankings, privacy and mental health info; clouds remain over content policing

• Discussion report: COI and NOTCENSORED: policies under discussion

• WikiProject report: We don't bite: WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles

• Featured content: Best of the week

• Arbitration report: AUSC appointments announced, one case remains open

• Technology report: With the 1.19 deployment now (mostly) complete, developers consider possible "mini" deployment later in the month

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Habanera_Carmen.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Habanera_Carmen.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Brian! Don't worry about the above. Saw it when I came to leave a note and took care of it already, so you're covered. Thanks for your comments so far on the Tchaik music section, which I've gone over again. Look forward to the rest of your comments whenever you have time—I know you're stretched pretty thin these days. Hope all's well. Jonyungk (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I must have simply forgotten to add the licence - I've loaded hundreds of images in my time! I'm finding it hard at present to meet all my review commitments and work on Carmen, and deal with a few outside issues, so it's a case of being a bit patient. Tchaikovsky looks in excellent shape generally; I hadn't realised until I did my Carmen research that he was a big Bizet fan. When the time comes, I may well ask you to cast an eye over the Carmen article, if you are able. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yeah—Tchaik was a huge fan of Carmen, to the point of near-plagiarizing some of it in The Queen of Spades. I'm at a GIS conference the next couple of days but would love to look over Carmen whenever you're ready—just let me know. Jonyungk (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Like your new user page format

I was really impressed with the clean-up and reorganizing you've done—enough that I did something similar with my user page. Nice work. Jonyungk (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Seconded, but have you got the words of the Lyke-Wake dirge right? Whenever I listen the Britten Serenade I am firmly convinced that all tenors sing "Fire, police and ambulance, And Christe receive thy saule". It is possible that I may be mistaken. Yours, Lady Mondegreen, aka Tim riley (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I learned the lines from my Great-uncle Harry from Barnsley, who used to give us the creeps by reciting them outside our bedroom door....And Christe receive his saule. Brianboulton (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Edmund Sharpe PR

I have been in touch with John Hughes, author of the main source, and received some replies and comments. I am pretty sure that BA at Oxbridge was a sort of common curriculum, a tripos or something. Apparently Sharpe's forebears came from your part of the country, and it may be that he was familiar with the area, and chose it for his "expeditions". John is not happy with your comment about the architect not being the "builder". He says it is the "'common currency' of architecture-speak" to refer to a structure being "built" by the architect. But I tend to agree with you; WP is not written for architects, but for the general reader, and it is better to be precise. Some writers also say that X built a structure, when they mean that he paid for it, a further potential cause of confusion.

Since the PR the article has had a copyedit (plus more comments from John Hughes) and I am not yet ready to submit it as a FAC; I will let you know when I do. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Johann Sebastian Bizet

Slave driver! It will, in truth, be my pleasure. I shall be away tomorrow, but will put time aside on Thursday. Tim riley (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It could be worse. He could have you read about Carl Phillipp Emanuel Rimsky-Korsakov. (At least that's what Igor Stravinsky called him.) :-) Jonyungk (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

"Carmen Suite" ballet

Thanks for the heads-up on the Carmen article. Since you've done your usually high-quality, thorough job, it's going to be hard finding something other than accolades (though, knowing you, that's the last thing you're going to find constructive). However, in your Adaptions section at the bottom of the article, you should mention Soviet/Russian composer Rodion Shchedrin's Carmen Suite ballet, with Bizet's music rearranged (very wittily, I might add) for strings and percussion. Since the ballet is Shchedrin's best-known piece and virtually the only one by which he is known in the West, you're bound to hear something from other modern Russian music fans if you leave it out. Jonyungk (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, your timing on having me read Carmen was perfect, as I finished the revision of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky yesterday. Now on to the symphonies.

If you do mention the ballet, have a look at Edward Greenfield's review in The Gramophone, which I read with astonishment when I was a (rather prim) schoolboy: here'. Tim riley (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I will briefly mention the ballet, though without too much detail or discussion, the reason being that I have strongly contended that the focus of the Carmen article needs to be on the opera. In support of this view I have removed a significant amount of "adaptation" and derivative material, and I don't want to provide a precedent for the reintroduction of stuff! Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome and I agree with you on the course you suggest. A similar problem occurred in Tchaikovsky regarding the use of his music in popular culture. Fortunately, there was a separate article available to which I could link. Jonyungk (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, would a brief article on the Shchedrin ballet, to which you could link, be of use to you? This would save you from having to write more than maybe a sentence, if that. I have the Pletnev recording at home and will be back there early next week. If I can find more info either online or at a library here, then the article would be a go. (Maes unfortunately stops at Shostokovich's Babi Yar and does not discuss Shchedrin at all; everything else I brought here is on Tchaikovsky.) Jonyungk (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Then again, why wait? Here you go. (It's at least a start.) Jonyungk (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Ferrier centenary

I have it in my diary to nag you round about now-ish on the question of getting Ferrier on the front page on the day. I know nothing of the process, but I can help in any way, yours to command. Tim riley (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. Jonyungk (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If I may, I'll ask you for guidance on this later in the year: I have Georg Solti up for FAC, and if the article is promoted I'd like to get it on the front page for his centenary in October. Tim riley (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'll advise you on the various stages for TFA later on. I'll also check out the FAC Brianboulton (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It's sobering to think that by the time my 2012 centenarian made his operatic debut in England, your 2012 centenarian was already dead. Requiescat. Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Ernest Shackleton

This is a note to let the main editors of Ernest Shackleton know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 17, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 17, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Ernest Shackleton (1874–1922) was an Anglo-Irish polar explorer, one of the principal figures of the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration. His first experience of the polar regions was as third officer on Captain Robert Falcon Scott’s Discovery Expedition, 1901–04, from which he was sent home early on health grounds. Determined to make amends for this perceived personal failure, he returned to Antarctica in 1907 as leader of the Nimrod Expedition. In January 1909 he and three companions made a southern march which established a record Farthest South latitude at 88° 23′ S, 190 km from the South Pole. For this achievement, Shackleton was knighted by King Edward VII on his return home. After the race to the South Pole ended in 1912 with Roald Amundsen's conquest, Shackleton turned his attention to what he said was the one remaining great object of Antarctic journeying—the crossing of the continent from sea to sea, via the pole. To this end he made preparations for what became the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition, 1914–17. Disaster struck this expedition when its ship, Endurance, became trapped in pack ice and was slowly crushed before the shore parties could be landed. There followed a sequence of exploits, and an ultimate escape with no lives lost, that would eventually assure Shackleton's heroic status. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Concratulations! Jonyungk (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Should be commiserations. Main page appearances are 10% blessing, 90% curse (it's those vandals, God rot 'em) Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that what leprosy used to be for? It was literally considered "God rot." Talk about "getting biblical" on someone ... but enough maladjusted language. I really commiserate with you (even Walter Bache wasn't immune to a few demented tweaks) but am still glad Shackelton beat out St. Patrick for his day on WP.

I Won't Hold You Back

In the mood for something a bit off (your) beaten path? Any comments appreciated at Wikipedia:Peer review/Steve Lukather/archive2. --Laser brain (talk) 06:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm usually happy to try something different (provided it's not professional wrestling), and I'll try and look at this within the next few days. Caveat: my broadbent access is playing games of "on-off" at the moment, so delays in the service are possible. Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! I've been having similar issues—I think my problems are related to the pensioner next door recently becoming a ham radio enthusiast. --Laser brain (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

• Interview: Liaising with the Education Program

• Women and Wikipedia: Women's history, what we're missing, and why it matters

• Arbitration analysis: A look at new arbitrators

• News and notes: Sue Gardner tackles the funds, and the terms of use update nears implementation

• In the news: Britannica runs out of print as Jimmy Wales anointed UK transparency tsar

• Discussion report: Nothing changes as long discussions continue

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Women's History

• Featured content: Extinct humans, birds, and Birdman

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision in 'Article titles', only one open case

• Education report: Diverse approaches to Wikipedia in Education

• Technology report: Git learning curve steep but not insurmountable, plus a diff style we can all agree on?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Edmund Sharpe

Following your peer review, I have done a bit more work on the article and submitted it at FAC here. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

When I read through your synopsis for Carmen, I thought you might know the answer to this question: Do synopses of symphonies, concertos, etc. need to be cited? Nearly every one I've come across on WP had not been. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Can you point me to an example? I'm not sure that the term "synopsis" is usually applicable to symphonies and concertos, which are generally non-narrative in character, even though they may carry a basic theme or themes. If a symphony has a specific programme, e.g. Beethoven's Sixth, I would expect this programme to be cited to a source. Brianboulton (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• • By synopsis, I mean description of movements, as in Symphony No. 3 (Tchaikovsky) Jonyungk (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• • As a rough general rule, I think you have to distinguish between simple description and interpretative comment. For example: "The movement begins in the key of F sharp, with a slow melody played on strings and muted horns" might be said to be a simple description of the score and wouldn't need to be cited. However, if you added: "The music evokes the picture of a early summer morning" or some such, you would need to cite that interpretation. That's how I would go about it, anyway; I hope that helps. Brianboulton (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Actually, that helps quite a but. Thanks! Jonyungk (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Carmen PR

I will be glad to take a look, though it may take me a few days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks: it will be on PR all this week. Brianboulton (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be so slow - will look at it in the next few hours. Just very busy in real life. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Mariana Nicolesco

Hi. I'm wondering if you could perhaps spare a moment to assist me with an issue. I've brought this article into what I consider a decent shape, but I'm being harangued (not to say harassed) by Nicolesco's official representative (yes, he admits it), who insists that his version of her biography is the only acceptable one. Could you perhaps look over the issue a bit, maybe let him know that the version I've written is indeed more in tune with WP:MOS than his text? Any help in getting him off my back would be much appreciated. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I see the problem. Dr Stephen Poen's bombardment of your talkpage is completely unacceptable behaviour. As he writes in Romanian I've no idea what he is saying but I doubt that it is helpful, He should be warned and, if he persists, blocked. You are right in your assessment of the nature of his version of the Nicolesco biography; it is pure promotional material and has no place in an encyclopedia. Although your version is not structured as a typical Wikipedia biography, it does have the appropriate neutral tone. If there is further hostile activity from him I suggest you use the WP:ANI procedure to instigate administrator's action, though perhaps one of the admins who watches this page will pick this up and act anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR and a request

If you need a JSTOR article and dislike to impose on Tim, please impose on me. I made arrangements to get it as I found a library I was eligible to join (though not my home county) that had it. Also, if you have a moment, I'd be grateful for an opinion on United States Assay Commission. The sources are very thin on the Assay Commission, and I'm not certain it's worth putting up for FA. You don't have to do a detail review, just an opinion. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That is most kind - now I can impose on you and Tim! I will certainly look at the Assay article. Also, I may be asking for some help from you, as after Carmen I am taking a short sabbatical from music articles to work on a very interesting English legal case. Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Of course I've read about it. The question is, are there law review articles. If there are, and they are not available online conveniently, I can go over to George Mason Law School in Arlington.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The main English law reviews are Law Quarterly Review and the Cambridge Law Journal (there I probably others I don't know about). Nothing useful has come up from my google searching , and neither of the two main scholarly books (Woodruff 1957 and McWilliam 2007) list any law review articles in their sources. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but I don't really know where to look. Any ideas you have on that score would be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, if they don't, there probably aren't any.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky

Thanks for the comments on the Talk page. Left a couple of questions and there was one leftover from last time. Jonyungk (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

• News and notes: Chapters Council proposals take form as research applications invited for Wikipedia Academy and HighBeam accounts

• Discussion report: Article Rescue Squadron in need of rescue yet again

• WikiProject report: Lessons from another Wikipedia: Czech WikiProject Protected Areas

• Featured content: Featured content on the upswing!

• Arbitration report: Race and intelligence 'review' opened, Article titles at voting

• Technology report: Bugmeister to leave at end of May, but developers keen to "chart" a path ahead

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Rwanda FAC

Hi Brianboulton

It's been a while, but I have attempted to resolve the issue you raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rwanda/archive2 regarding the HDI and Gini figures being in the infobox but not the text. The HDI is now mentioned in the text, and the Gini figure has been removed. Let me know if that satisfies... Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Roy Dowling FAC

Hi Brian, since you made the first comment on this FAC, and things have been a bit quiet there for a while, I wonder whether you had any interest in making a more detailed review? It would certainly benefit from the perspective of someone not directly involved in the MilHist project. Fully understand if you have too much on your plate right now, however... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look later today. My expertise in the area, uncles notwithstanding, is not great but I'll do me best. Brianboulton (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Tks mate -- a fresh pair of eyes is always worthwhile. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Brian, acknowledged and/or acted on all your comments a couple of days ago. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Horse PR

Hi Brian, and thanks for the note. It would be great it you had the time to do a full PR on Horse - I know it's a big article but, as you say, it is also a vital one. I know that the backlog at PR right now is quite large, and I applaud the work that you, Ruhrfisch and Finetooth have been doing over the years - it is often a thankless task. I have been trying to get to reviewing a few articles and just haven't found the time, but will try harder over the next couple of weeks. I look forward to your comments on Horse - they would be much appreciated by all of us. Thanks, and please let me know if there is anything specific I can do to repay the favor with regards to PR or your articles, Dana boomer (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. And Ealdgyth will usually review an article if I ask her, even though (a) she hates opera and (b) many horses have died during my polar exploration articles. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It's only fitting that you expiate your sins by reviewing the horse article... (Opera is a sin against music... really! Dvorak is soooo much better than listening to some screeching soprano...) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.... Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Josephus on Jesus

I commented on the PR and talk pages and will see what the response is. Imagine I will close it. Thanks for the heads up, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

• News and notes: Controversial content saga continues, while the Foundation tries to engage editors with merchandising and restructuring

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Rock Music

• Featured content: Malfunctioning sharks, toothcombs and a famous mother: featured content for the week

• Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review at evidence, article titles closed

• Recent research: Predicting admin elections; studying flagged revision debates; classifying editor interactions; and collecting the Wikipedia literature

• Education report: Universities unite for GLAM; and High Schools get their due.

• Technology report: A busy week: Git switchover, mobile site upgraded, and still time for three security releases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Dan Leno

The article on Dan Leno has been nominated for Featured Article consideration here. Leno was a leading star of music hall, Victorian burlesque and pantomime. We would welcome your comments, if you have time. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Talbot Baines Reed

This is a note to let the main editors of Talbot Baines Reed know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 2, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 2, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Talbot Baines Reed (1852–1893) was an English writer of boys' fiction who established a genre of school stories that endured into the second half of the 20th century. Among his best-known work is The Fifth Form at St. Dominic's. He was a regular and prolific contributor to The Boy's Own Paper, in which most of his fiction first appeared. Through his family's business, Reed became a prominent typefounder, and wrote a classic History of the Old English Letter Foundries. Reed's affinity with boys, his instinctive understanding of their standpoint in life and his gift for creating believable characters, ensured that his popularity survived through several generations. He was widely imitated by other writers in the school story genre. By then he had begun his monumental Letter Foundries history which, published in 1887, was hailed as the standard work on the subject. Reed also wrote regular articles and book reviews for his cousin Edward Baines's newspaper, the Leeds Mercury. After struggling with illness for most of 1893, Reed died in November that year, at the age of 41. Tributes honoured him both for his contribution to children's fiction and for his work as the definitive historian of English typefounding. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Assassination

I've answered your concerns. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

FA status in Piano music of Gabriel Fauré

Please see this comment. Best wishes, Gidip (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51